April 10, 2007
– Comments (2)
You can always just rewrite the history that's already been made.
Nothing to see here...
What are you supposed to do when the news media are hugely biased against you? The truth isn't going to get reported in the New York Times. (Their aversion to the truth is one reason I rate NYT underperform in CAPS.)
For example, remember in the 2000 elections, when there were numerous derogatory mentions in the press of Republican poll watchers "harassing" voters?
The Times could never tell the real story:
The Republican party sent letters to every registered voter's address in districts where they suspected massive fraud.
A lot of those letters were returned to them, marked "no such address" by the Post Office. So, the Republicans sent poll watchers to ask voters with those non-existent addresses to clarify where they lived.
So, 1) there was clearly voter fraud occurring, 2) it was being perpetrated by mostly Democrats and 3) the Republicans were making an honest effort to root it out, not to harass innocent voters.
Was this story told anywhere in the mainstream press? I very much doubt it.
If history were written accurately in the first place, there might not be such a need to rewrite it.
<>BTW, I am not a Republican and did not vote for Bush either time. I'm a Libertarian with a strong dislike for both major parties. I defend one side here because I believe there is a major voter fraud problem, and that it's intolerable. It's disgusting that the mainstream media are not only tolerating it, but abetting it.
Yup, by refusing to buy unsupported arguments of "major" voter fraud -- the same unfounded allegations rejected by some of those fired FP's, the news media is "abetting" fraud.
Failing to tote the party line is what we see, and that's what good journalists do.
I find it endlessly amusing that the whines about massive Democratic voter fraud come from the folks who hatched this scheme.
Voter fraud is as old as voting, and it exists. (In Illinois the Chicago Dems and downstate Republicans are masters of the trade.)
But before vote-supressing legislation is enacted, there should be strong evidence that there's a potential good outweighing a proven harm. I don't think that's been shown in most of these screaming matches.
And its no coincidence that the politically-motivated firings of fed prosecutors -- followed by oversight-free appointments made by the Bush/Gonzales Goon Squad -- were perpetrated for the same reasons.
Taking hold of the politicial process under the auspices of law and order is an old tyrant's trick.